|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is ID a right wing conspiracy? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
brainpan Inactive Member |
DominionSeraph wrote:
Two points:ID isn't capable of performing the verb, "to conspire." Last time I checked, it's a concept -- not a person. 1. It is reasonable to assume the author of this thread's title intended to ask a logical question. His intent seemed patently obvious to me, and apparently to every other poster besides yourself. 2. conspiracy-n 2: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act. What was your point again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
brainpan Inactive Member |
Modulous wrote:
I agree, and this pretty well sums it up:However, one can say "Intelligent Design represents the coming together of factions within the right wing to engage in a subversive act" conspiracy-n 2: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act This message has been edited by brainpan, 08-03-2005 12:19 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6453 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
Not really. They [Behe/Dembski] don't get into theories on how ID might work, and instead just state the evidence is best explained by some sort of design mechanism. But scientifically, this begs the question. Science is all about trying to elucidate physical mechanisms for physical phenomena. So this form of ID may be of philosophical interest, but it isn't science. Nor, as I've discussed, can the notion of a designer imply the kind of conservative theology the Discovery Institute has in mind. Even if one could scientifically infer design ( a tall order at present, to say the least), the design could easily be the product of some sort of emergent universal consciousness nothing like the Abrahamic God concept, and the arguments to resolve that issue would be purely philosophic and theological.
That's [design] an observed fact, and unlike you, I think it has great relevance. Although I am not a metaphysical materialist, I recognize that whatver arguments of a metaphysical or theistic nature I might make are not scientific arguments, as they do not deal with observable, repeatable physical phenomena. Again, this really begs the question of where one detects design. I agree that I find certain arguments in favor of reality showing evidence of design or higher consciousness compelliing (although of a quite different nature than the Discovery Institute ID arguments). I do not regard these arguments as scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
the design could easily be the product of some sort of emergent universal consciousness nothing like the Abrahamic God concept, So? I think you are confused about ID. ID does not speculate about the theological aspects of the Designer. Heck, ID could well back the idea of aliens assisting the development of life on earth. It is not a theological concept. In terms of science, forensics is science not philosophy and so is ID. Both seek to assess whether Intelligent Design is at work in some fashion.
Again, this really begs the question of where one detects design. We can get into more details, but design is apparent. The fact that all humans, for example, have some common traits is proof of design. The issue is how the design came to be, not whether design exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
brainpan Inactive Member |
Randman wrote: It is obvious, in the context of this discussion, the issue is intelligent design.The issue is how the design came to be, not whether design exists. ...so is ID(science) Explain.It is not a theological concept. Well, the Wedge/ID conspiracy would fail if it was presented as a theological concept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Forensics studies whether something contains design or an intelligent causal agent. So it's not the study of design is unscientific.
IDers state they believe aspects of what we in creation can be best understood as indicative of design, of being designed by an Intelligence. I believe they are clearly correct on that point. They also maintain that mechanisms in materialist evolution are insufficient to explain all the data we see that is called life, and I agree there. I find the arguments on irreducible complexity compelling, in fact. In terms of mechanisms, many IDers don't seem to delve into how a Designer would design. Personally, I take a different approach and believe we are discovering mechanisms for direct engineering (design implementation) within QM.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 643 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
YOu might say you have a different approach.. but making a claim is different that coming up with a way to test that claim.
So far, one thing all 'ID' propoents have in common is they can not test their claims. Most ID's aren't even trying to, but rather are concentrating on the political aspects of trying to get ID taught. It isn't ready to be in schools.. even such propoents as dembski will admit that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sleikind Inactive Member |
I don't think that ID is a right wing conspiracy. I have also never understood why there is a debate between ID and evolution or ID and the Big Bang. It seems to me that ID is 100% compatible with either of these two theories. You could debate whether the Big Bang or Evolution best describe how the universe and life as we know it have come to be. However, the outcome of this debate has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there is an Intelligent Designer behind it all.
It is entirely possible that an Intelligent Designer set the whole process of evolution in motion. It is also entirely possible that an Intelligent Designer started the Big Bang and the universe has evolved and changed "by design". It does not seem to me that Science addresses this question at all. There is absolutely nothing in Science that is incompatible with the notion of Intelligent Design. I do not understand what the "debate" is all about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hello, sleikind, and welcome to EvC.
The problem with ID is that it is not science. It basically comes down to: I cannot imagine how this particular structure/biochemical system may have evolved through gradual steps, so I conclude that an Intelligent Designer must have fashioned it. It is basically the argument from personal incredulity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
It is entirely possible that an Intelligent Designer set the whole process of evolution in motion. It is also entirely possible that an Intelligent Designer started the Big Bang and the universe has evolved and changed "by design". It does not seem to me that Science addresses this question at all. There is absolutely nothing in Science that is incompatible with the notion of Intelligent Design. I do not understand what the "debate" is all about. The "debate" is about the fact that ID is NOT science. It's theology. There is no evidence to suggest that anything was ever "designed," or guided by an intelligence. ID proponents simply point to "complexity" and say that this is evidence of design. ID describes no mechanism - it just says "Goddidit," or at least "somebodydidit." ID makes no falsifiable claims. All scientific hypothesis MUST by definition be falsifiable. Occam's Razor tells us specifically NOT to add extraneous entities to a theory. Since the universe is fully explainable without a grand designer, there is no reason to add one. If ID is NOT science, it has no place in a science classroom. A philosophy or theology class would be fine, but it has zero basis in science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
I have also never understood why there is a debate between ID and evolution or ID and the Big Bang. It seems to me that ID is 100% compatible with either of these two theories. Welcome sleikind, I couldn't agree more, and I never really understood the debate either. I believe an intelligent designer did indeed set the whole process of evolution in motion. But God is spiritual and we are also spirits having been created in His image. Our spirits are contained in this shell of a physical body that developed in gradual steps according to evolutionary principles. The problem is when ID proponents want to extend the concept into the realm of science by positioning ID as science, which it is not. Or when creationists place too much emphasis on the value of our organic "shells" instead of our spiritual nature. Their mistake is arguing against the evolution of our physical bodies, when the focus should be on the soul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sleikind Inactive Member |
I still don't think that the real debate is about ID vs. Evolution. Instead, many of those opposed to teaching evolution in schools try to frame it that way. Doing so gives them an entree for implementing their real agenda which is to teach versions of "how things came to be" that correspond with their reading of text from Genesis. The truth is that Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are not at all incompatible with the notion of an intelligent designer.
I personally wouldn't have a problem if someone teaching a course on Evolution made opening remarks that some people believe that Evolution came about through intelligent design while others do not. However, that is not what this debate is all about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I still don't think that the real debate is about ID vs. Evolution. Instead, many of those opposed to teaching evolution in schools try to frame it that way. Doing so gives them an entree for implementing their real agenda which is to teach versions of "how things came to be" that correspond with their reading of text from Genesis. I'm not sure I follow. There IS a real debate between those who support ID and scientists. ID is NOT science, as I have shown. You're right that those opposed to evolution do so to further their own agenda, but this doesn't mean that the debate doesn't exist.
The truth is that Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are not at all incompatible with the notion of an intelligent designer. But an intelligent designer, with no evidence to suggest one, is not science. Philisophically and theologically, you can mesh them into a single worldview. Many people here who believe in God AND evolution do exactly that. But ID is not science, despite its proponent's claims to the contrary.
I personally wouldn't have a problem if someone teaching a course on Evolution made opening remarks that some people believe that Evolution came about through intelligent design while others do not. I would. In a science class, "belief" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Operating from belief with no evidence is contrary to the scientific method itself. Science classes should deal in observable facts and the theories that spring from them, not philosophy or theology. Those classes are down the hall, thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sleikind Inactive Member |
Hi Chiroptera,
Perhaps, but looking at this from the standpoint of "pure reason", the notion that human beings were created in one day vs. the notion that they were created through evolution over two billion years both seem equally improbable to me. However, scientific evidence clearly favors the latter until new evidence surfaces to the contrary. Either "theory" is equally compatible with the belief that there is an intelligent designer or that there is no intelligent designer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Either "theory" is equally compatible with the belief that there is an intelligent designer or that there is no intelligent designer. The fact that ID fits both is part of the very reason it isn't science: It's not falsifiable. There is no evidence one can put forth to disprove the idea that a grand designer caused everything. All scientific theories must be falsifiable - otherwise it's just idle speculation. And please don't refer to Creationism as a "theory." A "theory" carries the weight of evidence and repeated attempts at falsification. Creationism is a religious belief, nothing more.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024